Topic: Comparison Test: 2014 Mazda3 vs 2014 Toyota Corolla

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The Yokohama Geolander G95s that came with XV work very well, and aren't too noisy.
The ContiPro Contacts on the Outback 3.6R seemed like pretty good tires too.

As per the Yokohamas, I expect them to work well, the car isn't even a year old yet.  Let us know when they have reached 50-70k.

I was referring to new tires.

The Yokos handled rain, snow and ice much better than any all season OEM tires I've had. The Contis were pretty good, but not quite as adept with snow. At 50-70k, I'm not sure if I'll still have the car or the tires. We'll see.

For a poor OEM tire, the Goodyear RS-As that came with my Vibe were pretty crappy in anything other than dry conditions, and downright treacherous in snow.
 

[Black Hatch]

So does anyone use OEM tires as a consideration when buying a new car?
New tires would be an expense if you didn't like the OEMs.

[dkaz]

I'll just let them wear out and then appreciate the new tires. I lowered my 3 without rear adjustable camber arms so there's about 2 degrees of negative camber right now which will speed up the process. > Plus negative camber is giving me decent lateral traction with otherwise crummy tires.

I want the Hankook Ventus V12 Evos.

[HeliDriver]

So does anyone use OEM tires as a consideration when buying a new car?
New tires would be an expense if you didn't like the OEMs.

I don't really care what tires come on the car: if they are crap (and they often are), I just change them for the ones I want. I can't imagine it affecting my purchasing decision one way or the other.

When I bought the GTI, I had the dealer remove the OE all-seasons before delivery. They were bagged and in the back of the car when I picked it up, and I sold the like new tires on kijiji for $200.

So it only cost me maybe five hundred bucks to have good tires on the car from day 1. Well worth it, IMO.

And, BTW, an OEM is a company that manufactures stuff: Bridgestone, Pirelli, Michelin, etc. are all OEMs. The actual tires that come on your car are simply OE.

OEM: Original Equipment Manufacturer
OE: Original Equipment

[mixmanmash]

I'll just let them wear out and then appreciate the new tires. I lowered my 3 without rear adjustable camber arms so there's about 2 degrees of negative camber right now which will speed up the process. > Plus negative camber is giving me decent lateral traction with otherwise crummy tires.

I want the Hankook Ventus V12 Evos.

Pretty much the same on my Protege - used the OE Dunlops till they were done and then swapped.  I'm running the Hankook V12s in summer on my Protege.  Decent bang for the buck, but definitely not as good as some other tires I've had.  I felt the Kumho SPTs that I had on before had better wet traction, but it's a pretty marginal difference.

[Black Hatch]

From the story: The Mazda3 has not completed IIHS crash testing, but both its predecessor and the CX-5 crossover, with which it shares body structure, have both aced the test previously.

That simply isn't true.  The CX-5 received the exact same marginal rating as the Corolla in the small overlap crash.  Both scored an identical "Top Safety Pick", and both missed out on the "+" rating because of that marginal small overlap score.  And the previous generation Mazda3 was never tested on the small overlap crash...and was identically rated to the previous generation Toyota.

So much for fact checking and oversight by the story writer's editor.  This is sloppy journalism at best IMO.  At worst, it's biased journalism.  Neither are acceptable IMO, since this story is being passed off as fact.


2013/14 CX-5: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/cx-5
2014 Corolla: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/toyota/corolla

Previous generation Mazda3: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mazda/3-sedan
Previous generation Corolla: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/toyota/corolla/2013

End the speculation
2014 Mazda3 gets a good small overlap rating.
http://m.iihs.org/mobile/ratings/mobileratings/mazda/3-sedan

[JRM]

I recently test drove a Mazda3 Sport GS auto.   It handled well enough, but accelleration felt lethargic compared to my 2.5 Golf wagon and even my wife's Vibe.  Of course the former is to be expected with the Golf having more horepower and tourque, but the Vibe (Matrix) has only 132 hp and is 9 years old.  Were's the zoom zoom?

[Seafoam]

I recently test drove a Mazda3 Sport GS auto.   It handled well enough, but accelleration felt lethargic compared to my 2.5 Golf wagon and even my wife's Vibe.  Of course the former is to be expected with the Golf having more horepower and tourque, but the Vibe (Matrix) has only 132 hp and is 9 years old.  Were's the zoom zoom?

You can't say that about the  2014 mazda 3. It's supposed to be the best compact on the planet. Anything else is junk.
And for the record i own a mazda. I'm glad there are many compacts to choose from because everyone has an opinion on what they think is best.

[Solstice2006]

I recently test drove a Mazda3 Sport GS auto.   It handled well enough, but accelleration felt lethargic compared to my 2.5 Golf wagon and even my wife's Vibe.  Of course the former is to be expected with the Golf having more horepower and tourque, but the Vibe (Matrix) has only 132 hp and is 9 years old.  Were's the zoom zoom?

Maybe it's the tip in on the accelerator...But the  0-60 mph numbers are:

Mazda3 auto with 2.0L 8.3 seconds
Mazda3 auto with 2.5L 7.6 seconds

Pontiac Vibe base model 1.8L 9.9 seconds
Pontiac Vibe GT 8.0 seconds

VW Golf 2.5 7.8 seconds

So the base Mazda3, is almost as quick as the Vibe GT...and the 2.5L in the Mazda3 is faster than the 2.5 in the Golf!

[Frontier1]

No matter how many Ss they put on the trunk of that Corolla, it just does not belong in this comparo, period

[Snowman]

No matter how many Ss they put on the trunk of that Corolla, it just does not belong in this comparo, period

 

[dkaz]

Sling it around corners, that's where the zoom zoom is.

[Black Hatch]

I recently test drove a Mazda3 Sport GS auto.   It handled well enough, but accelleration felt lethargic compared to my 2.5 Golf wagon and even my wife's Vibe.  Of course the former is to be expected with the Golf having more horepower and tourque, but the Vibe (Matrix) has only 132 hp and is 9 years old.  Were's the zoom zoom?

Maybe it's the tip in on the accelerator...But the  0-60 mph numbers are:

Mazda3 auto with 2.0L 8.3 seconds
Mazda3 auto with 2.5L 7.6 seconds

Pontiac Vibe base model 1.8L 9.9 seconds
Pontiac Vibe GT 8.0 seconds

VW Golf 2.5 7.8 seconds

So the base Mazda3, is almost as quick as the Vibe GT...and the 2.5L in the Mazda3 is faster than the 2.5 in the Golf!

And Mazdas are now geared for FUEL ECONOMY not the thirsty sporty late shifts like the 2000s.

And the zoom-zoom moniker is really a mis-nomer.
Its more about handling for Mazda and should have been zig-zag.
Think RX-8 vs 350Z or RX-7 vs Supra?

[rrocket]

RX-7 vs Supra?

Bad example. The Supra had superior handling than the RX-7 did. In nearly every measurable category and standard test.

[Fobroader]

RX-7 vs Supra?

Bad example. The Supra had superior handling than the RX-7 did. In nearly every measurable category and standard test.

Ill give you the Supra had more power.....handling wise though?? I thought the RX7 had that handled when compared to any car, well maybe not the NSX, because of the Supras weight.

Best article I could quickly find:

http://www.carthrottle.com/carthrottle-asks-supra-turbo-vr-4-300zx-or-rx-7/

[rrocket]

RX-7 vs Supra?

Bad example. The Supra had superior handling than the RX-7 did. In nearly every measurable category and standard test.

Ill give you the Supra had more power.....handling wise though?? I thought the RX7 had that handled when compared to any car, well maybe not the NSX, because of the Supras weight.

Best article I could quickly find:

http://www.carthrottle.com/carthrottle-asks-supra-turbo-vr-4-300zx-or-rx-7/

Yes....the Supra held handling and braking record for several years in several different magazines. .94-.98G was off the charts in 1994. One of the braking records was beaten until the 2003 SRT10 finally best it.

Not sure why people thought the Supra didn't handle. See my post above. I'll post more like it if you want.

[rrocket]

Another:

[Fobroader]

Hmmm, I always thought the RX7 was the best handling japanese car and the Supra was fast.....seems I dont remember those road tests from the mid 90s that well 

[rrocket]

Hmmm, I always thought the RX7 was the best handling japanese car and the Supra was fast.....seems I dont remember those road tests from the mid 90s that well 

No question it's an impressive handler. But people think the Supra could only go straight. I have another test where the Supra whips a 911 abd a Ferrari around a track...want me post that one?

[Fobroader]

Hmmm, I always thought the RX7 was the best handling japanese car and the Supra was fast.....seems I dont remember those road tests from the mid 90s that well 

No question it's an impressive handler. But people think the Supra could only go straight. I have another test where the Supra whips a 911 abd a Ferrari around a track...want me post that one?

Sure!! An 8 page discussion on a Corolla/3 needs a bit of boost